2. FOREIGN STUDYINGS ON CORRUPTION

In the report of the World Bank and International Monetary Foundation “Struggle against corruption in transitional period: considerations for discussion” on consultative meeting “Strategies of poverty reduction for the region of Europe and Central Asia” (31.10 – 3.11, 2000), there was an attempt to classify corruption into “administrative” and “ usurpation of government”.

“Usurpation of government ” is defined as actions of individual people, groups or companies, which represent governmental as well as private sectors, with a goal to influence formation of laws, regulations, decrees and other instruments of governmental policy in their personal interests because of illegal and “non-transparent” transfer of private goods to governmental officials.

There can be identified different types of instruments, which are influenced by usurpation (legislative, executive, juridical or regulatory), and types of subjects, which make usurpation (private companies, political leaders or groups concerned).

Nevertheless, all forms of “ usurpation of government ”, ultimately, are directed on extraction of benefit for the narrow round of people, companies or branches by means of distortion of basic, legislative or regulatory frameworks.

In the process of investigation, conducted by the World Bank, there have been identified concrete actions, which fall under the definition of “usurpation of government”, including “selling” of votes in the Parliament, selling of delivering judgements on criminal and civil cases, inexpedient resource utilization, and also illegal “fees” of individual groups in budgets of political parties. Enterprises were suggested that they should evaluate direct influence on business of each, not depending on whether they implemented evaluation themselves or not. Thus, the extent of usurpation is measured not by the quantity of enterprises, participating in it, but by share of enterprises, business of which is influenced by usurpation. Figure 1 demonstrates aggregate indicator of influence of “usurpation of government” in different countries in transition on the basis of above-mentioned aspects.

Administrative corruption is the intentional introduction of distortions in directed character of implementation of existing laws, rules and statements with the goal to provide benefits to governmental or non-governmental subjects as a result of illegal provision of private benefits to governmental officials. Classic example of administrative corruption is the situation with unhappy owner of the shop, who has to give bribes to the enormous number of official auditors, so that they “make light” of insignificant (or may be considerable) offences against existing regulations. Besides these forms of extortion, administrative corruption includes such familiar variants of “greasing someone’s palm” like bribe in order to get license, simplify customs procedures, get contract on implementation of governmental supply, or to get priority position in access to other services of government.

Figure 1. Indicator of usurpation of government (share of companies, which are influenced by the usurpation of government)[1]

Finally, governmental officials can just use governmental resources, which are under their control, inappropriately to get direct financial benefits for themselves or their families. In the background of this form of corruption there is an opportunity of officials to provide benefits in selectively, to set prioritization in consuming of services of government or to use rules and regulations in such way, how they want them to be.

So then, development of new political and economic institutions in the conditions of scale redistribution of governmental of property has created favorable grounds for the “usurpation of government” and administrative corruption.

As shown in the studying of World Bank, there are presented “usurpation of government” and administrative corruption in sufficient proportion in Kyrgyzstan. However, level of usurpation of government is close to levels of such countries like Russia, Latvia and Ukraine, and level of administrative corruption if significantly higher. It is connected, primarily, with the fact that many market distortions, which allow to derive personal benefit, have appeared in transition period, and mechanisms of accountability of officials have turned out to be very weak at that time. Besides that, in the beginning of transition period yet weak political competition and underdevelopment of civil institutions facilitated more wide dissemination of corruption notions.

[1]Investigation of business-environment and results of enterprises’ activities during year 1999, ordered jointly qith World Bank and European Reconstruction and Development (ERDB), source: Hellman, Jones and Kaufmann (2000a).